This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

I’ve discussed in the past “look-good legislation, “look-bad legislation” and “feel-good legislation. I failed to mention the fourth category: “too much legislation.” Too much legislation is a single proposal that attempts to cover too many areas. The current gun proposal is such a bill. The bill was recently reported out of committee with a recommendation of “ought to pass,” but in my opinion needs several changes before being brought up for a vote by the entire House.

Though there are few legislators who believe no changes in gun laws are required, there are many who see the gun bill as overreaching. The bill attempts to cover licensing, school issues, mental illness, purchase and sales of weapons of all kinds, reporting requirements, training, background checks, and more. Unfortunately, if one believes that a particular aspect of the legislation is good but another is really bad, he or she must either take the bad with the good or disregard the entire document. Because this legislation covers so many areas, there can be no one who loves the whole thing or hates the whole thing.

Numerous bills pass through the legislature each year with multiple areas of interest, but this legislation is particularly onerous in that respect. In my view, this legislation would be more appropriates presented in three separate bills rather than one “omnibus” bill. There were approximately 60 firearms bills proposed this session. Two or three of those bills could be passed or amended to cover the majority of the issues contained in this single bill.

Contact: 617-722-2090

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, yet

By Rep. Brian Mannal

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Recently, the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security convened a hearing on H.4121 (i.e., an Act relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence). H.4121 is an omnibus bill that seeks to address a variety of issues related to mental health, firearms licensing, and firearms-related violence. Like most omnibus bills, there are parts of the legislation that I support, and parts that I do not support. Unlike most omnibus bills, however, this bill has the potential to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. For that reason, when I was polled on the legislation as a member of the committee, I was unable to vote in favor of an "ought to pass" recommendation. Similarly, because there are certain parts of the bill that I would like to see become law, such as increased penalties for gun-related crimes, I could not vote for an "ought not to pass" recommendation. Accordingly, I voted to reserve my rights, which is procedurally akin to abstaining from a vote.

In short, despite serious flaws with the current language of the bill, I was unwilling to throw the baby out with the bath water. Like most people, I wish to see a reduction of gun violence in our society; however, I am uncertain that this legislation will achieve that goal. Moreover, I am fearful that it will unduly burden law-abiding gun owners. In particular, I take issue with Sections 18, 19, and 26 of the legislation. Section 18 requires all secondary-market gun sales to take place at a location operated by a licensed firearms dealer. Section 19 inserts a subjective "suitability" and "good reason" standard into the firearm ID statute. Section 26 prohibits individuals convicted of non-violent misdemeanors from owning a firearm and/or being issued a firearm ID.

Based on the testimony presented at the recent hearing on the bill, there is no evidence to support the claim that requiring all secondary-market (private) gun sales to take place in the presence of a licensed firearms dealer will improve public safety and/or reduce gun violence. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the claim that individuals who have been convicted of non-violent misdemeanors are more likely to violate firearms laws. By contrast, based on the testimony presented at the hearing, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that the adoption of a subjective "suitability standard" for licensing will result in qualified applicants (law-abiding citizens) being denied firearms IDs without cause.

In the coming weeks, the House will take up the bill and debate amendments to it. If the aforementioned sections are removed from H.4121, then I will support the legislation. If said sections are not removed from the legislation, then I will vote against it and (reluctantly) throw the baby out with the bath water.

Contact: 617-722-2582

Gun violence bill takes scattershot approach

By Rep. Randy Hunt

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

My two colleagues who represent, along with me, the Town of Barnstable in the Massachusetts House of Representatives are both members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. The joint committee hosted a hearing on June 3, 2014 for House 4121, An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence.

I testified while they listened, as did scores of others at the capacity-filled hearing in Gardner Auditorium that began at noon and concluding after 9 p.m. The omnibus bill includes sections dealing with mental health records reporting, education centered around suicide prevention, increased penalties for gun-related crimes, issuance of licenses-to-carry and firearms ID cards, and school safety measures.

The trouble with such all-encompassing legislation is just that; it tries to be all-encompassing. Rather than stay true to the title of the bill, it contains a penalty for licensed firearms owners who do not start their license renewal process at least 90 days prior to expiration. How does this reduce gun violence?

It perpetuates the myth that people can conduct a legal private sale of a firearm in Massachusetts without having been subjected to background checks. Based on their testimony, neither Attorney General Martha Coakley nor Secretary of Public Safety Andrea Cabral understands the current law and reporting system.

There are components of this bill I can support, such as coming into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by contributing Massachusetts information, particularly mental health records, to the system. I suggest that the committee break this legislation into at least three topic-area bills and push the one that aims at the original target of reducing gun violence.